English Language Teaching December, 2009 The Role of Input, Interaction and Output in the Development of Oral Fluency Shumei Zhang Foreign languages Department, Dongguan University of Tech Song Shan Lake, Dongguan, Guangdong 523808, China E-mail: [email protected] Abstract This paper is a research in the second Language acquisition (SLA) with its focus on the role of input, interaction and output in the development of oral fluency in the EFL context from both a theoretical point of view and a case study. Two instruments were used: tests of oral fluency and face-to-face interviews. The findings showed that non-native oral fluency could be obtained through efficient and effective input, interaction and output in EFL while on the other hand they suggested answers to the question why most Chinese English learners failed to speak English fluently, namely lacking effective input and output, having no real need for interaction, attaching too much importance to language forms and written tests. Keywords: Input, Interaction, Output, Oral fluency 1. Introduction Since 1978 when the then Chinese government leaders decided to adopt the reform and open-door policies, English language learning has been boosted in China. In the past three decades, the Chinese English learner has greatly improved their four basic skills—listening, speaking, reading and writing. However, these four skills have not developed at the same rate. Li (2003) holds that speaking remains the most difficult skill to master for the majority of English learners. They are still incompetent to communicate orally in English even though they might be able to read Shakespeare’s works in original after years of study at school. What accounts for this inability? Is it possible for a nonnative speaker to possess near native-like proficiency? Such questions have interested me for years and consequently prompted me to choose this topic and conduct the present research. The research is a study on the second Language acquisition (SLA) with its focus on the role of input, interaction and output and discusses their influence on the development of oral fluency. As the subjects have learned English in an input-poor EFL context, what it is reflected in this study somewhat represents the problems that have arisen from EFL learning. Hopefully, the present research in the role of input, interaction and output and their influence on oral fluency should enhance the understanding of the nature of speaking, an indicator of L2 proficiency, and the understanding of the relationship between learners and factors that influence their SL acquisition. In this paper I will start by eliciting different viewpoints about the role of input, interaction and output in L2 learning, before defining oral fluency. After that I will present the data collected from an experiment of 15 Chinese young learners, especially from two types of English learners and their learning history that contributed to their oral ability. At the end of the paper I will make a conclusion by summarizing the findings from the experiment and state my opinion about the role of input, interaction and output in the development of learners’ oral fluency. 2. Literature view 2.1 Input, Interaction and Output The role of the three closely relevant factors, namely input, interaction and output has gradually been acknowledged in second language (L2) learning. It is now widely recognized that input is essential for language acquisition. In addition to input, it is also accepted that interaction plays a crucial role in the process of learning L2. Output--an automatic output, to be exact--is one pedagogical goal in learning L2. So, input, interaction and output are three essential compositing elements in L2 acquisition. But for years there has been a debate about their role. 2.1.1 Input In language learning, input is the language data which the learner is exposed to. It is commonly acknowledged that for second language acquisition to take place there must be two prerequisites: L2 input available to the learners and a set of internal mechanism to account for how L2 data are processed (Ellis, 1985). Towards the issue of input there are generally three views: behaviorist, mentalist and interactionist view, each holding a different emphasis in explaining SLA. A behaviorist view treats language learning as environmentally determined, controlled from outside by the stimuli 91 Vol. 2, No. 4 English Language Teaching learners are exposed to and the reinforcement they receive. In contrast, mentalist theories emphasize the importance of the learner’s ‘black box’. They maintain that learners’ brains are especially equipped to learn language and all that is needed is minimal exposure to input in order to trigger acquisition (Ellis, 1997). Interactionist theories acknowledge the importance of both input and internal language processing, emphasizing the joint contribution of linguistic environment and the learners’ inner mechanism in interaction activities, which I will discuss later. Krashen was an important figure whose input hypothesis once exercised powerful influence on SLA. According to his input hypothesis, SLA takes place when the learner understands input that contains grammatical forms that are at ‘i+1’ (i.e. are a little more advanced than the current state of the learner’s interlanguage). He suggests that the right level of input is attained automatically when interlocutors succeed in making themselves understood in communication (Krashen, 1985:2). In his view, the Input Hypothesis is central to all of acquisition, i.e. L2 acquisition depends on comprehensible input. In the classroom, then, the teacher’s main role is to ensure that learners receive comprehensible input by providing them with listening and reading materials. However, a great many researches later challenge his hypothesis by supplying abundant evidence indicating that though necessary, comprehensible input alone is insufficient for L2 acquisition (Swain 1981,1991; Harley & Hart, 1997; Harley & Swain, 1984, etc.). They argue that processing of comprehension is different from processing of production. And the ability to understand meaning conveyed by sentences differs from the ability to use linguistic system to express meaning (Swain, 1985, 1988; Sharwood Smith, 1986; Crookes, 1991). When input is negotiated and learners produce output in interaction, they selectively “take in” portions of comprehensible input and choose correct linguistic form to express themselves. This process makes it possible for the learners to internalize what they have learnt and experienced. Corder’s distinction between input and intake should be mentioned here. He defines input as what is available to the learner, whereas intake refers to what is actually internalized by the learner (Corder, 1967).This distinction is justified by huge amount of evidence in foreign language learning practice. It is convincingly argued that L2 acquisition will not occur even if with input at the right quantity and quality but without being internalized by the learners and becoming part of their interlanguage system. On the whole, input is absolutely necessary and there is no theory or approach to SLA that does not recognize the importance of input. In Schwartz’s view (1993), the input feeds or nurtures an innate system to aid its growth. But input alone cannot facilitate second language learning. It will not function to the full in SLA until it gets involved in interaction. 2.1.2 Interaction Interaction refers to exchanges in which there is some indication that an utterance has not been entirely understood and participants need to interrupt the flow of the conversation in order for both parties to understand what the conversation is about (Gass & Selinker, 2001). In conversations involving NNSs, negotiations are frequent. Long(1980) was the first to point out that conversations involving NNSs exhibited forms that did not appear to any significant degree when only NSs were involved. For example, confirmation checks, comprehension checks and clarification requests are prepared throughout conversations in which there is a nonproficient NNS participant. In his updated version of the interaction Hypothesis, Long(1996) suggests that “negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interaction adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways” (pp.451-452). Thus , through negotiation, a learner’s attentional resources may be oriented to (a) a particular discrepancy between what he or she knows about the L2 and what the L2 really is or (b)an area of the L2 about which the learner has little or no information(Gass & Torres, 2005). Interaction is said to be an attention-drawing device, which means that interaction serves to draw attention to an unknown part of language (Gass, 1977). Learning may take place during the interaction. Allwright (1984:156)regards interaction as the “fundamental fact of classroom pedagogy” because “everything happening in the classroom happens through a process of live person-to-person interaction”. During such kind of interaction learners make efforts to generate comprehensible output, which turns to be sources of input for other interlocutors. Misunderstandings occur frequently in interaction due to different factors, which can be, on different occasions, phonological, syntactic, vocabulary, contextual or cultural, to name only a few. To get meaning through, or seek correct interpretation, or make up for communication breakdown, the learners resort to all sorts of strategies. The feedback the learners get from their teachers and peers drives them to “test their hypotheses and refine their development knowledge of the language system” (Hedge, 2000); hence functions as a facilitator of language development. Other SLA theorists regard interaction as the bedrock of acquisition based on the theories of L. S. Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist, who argues that children learn through interpersonal activity, such as play with adults, who provides ‘scaffolding’, whereby they form concepts that would be beyond them if they were acting alone.